Progress

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond annotations — that a MissingParameterError is raised when progress_id is absent — but says nothing about what the returned model contains or any rate/scope constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Sphinx-style :param:/:return:/:raises: sections are compact and every line is relevant, but the docstring format is not front-loaded for agent consumption and the boilerplate return/type lines add little. Adequate but not optimized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 43 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin — it explains only the ID parameter and gives no sense of the return shape or role of the other inputs. An agent could call it but would be guessing about most of the interface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 43 parameters, so the description carries full param burden, yet it documents only progress_id (with type). The other 42 nullable parameters are unexplained, leaving the agent to guess whether they matter for this call. This is a significant shortfall against low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb+resource ('Get progress information based on the provided progress ID'), which is more than a tautology, but 'progress information' is generic and does not say what kind of progress or distinguish this tool from siblings like servicenow_instance_scan_progress or servicenow_batch_install_result. An agent cannot tell which progress artifact this retrieves without more context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no preconditions beyond the note that it raises MissingParameterError. The agent is told the tool needs an ID but not when this tool is the right choice over the many other ServiceNow status/progress tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.